Judge  for  Yourself 


Presenting  the  Special  Message  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States  transmitted  to  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress  January  26,  1911;  also  sta- 
tistical data  showing  the  effect  of  the  agreement 
upon  the  American  farmer  as  buyer  and  seller. 


Issued  By 

Association  of  Minnesota  Manufacturers 

H.  M.  Kinney,  Winona,  Chairman 
John  H.  Anderson,  Sec’y. 

2300  University  Ave.,  St.  Paul 
A.  O.  Hubbard,  Minneapolis,  President 
Vice-Presidents 

H.  F.  JOHNS,  Lake  City  P.  J.  LYONS,  Minneapolis  CHARLES  LORING,  Crookston 

H.  C.  HOWE,  Owatonna  CHAS.  S.  HALB,  Minneapolis  W.  E.  MUIR,  Winona 

E.  R.  Beeman,  Treasurer 

St.  Louis  Park 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/judgeforyourselfOOunit 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


3 


Judge  for  Yourself 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  alleged  disadvantages  that  are  to 
result  to  the  American  farmers  because  the  proposed  reciprocity  agree- 
ment with  Canada  admits  barley  and  wheat  free  of  duty,  and  little 
attention  has  been  paid  to  the  advantages  the  agreement  gives  directly 
to  our  farmers.  These  advantages  fall  into  two  classes : First,  those 
of  the  extended  market  in  Canada  for  his  products,  and  second,  the 
free  or  freer  entrance  into  the  United  States  of  the  Canadian  products 
bought  by  our  farmers.  The  following  tables  speak  for  themselves 
and  are  reproduced  directly  from  the  official  United  States  figures 
transmitted  to  Congress  by  President  Taft. 

See  Page  1 2 

Table  one  shows  the  widened  Canadian  market  given  for  our 
farmers’  products  by  the  abolition  or  reduction  of  duties  by  Canada. 

See  Page  15 

Table  two  shows  how  our  farmers  as  consumers  will  benefit  by 
the  reduction  or  abolition  of  our  duties  on  Canadian  products  which 
are  consumed  by  our  farmers. 

We  believe  the  law  will  be  of  benefit  to  the  entire  Northwest, 
including  the  farmer. 

Tariff  Between  Neighbors 

The  people  of  the  British  Northwest  are  like  ourselves.  Many 
of  them  our  former  neighbors  and  citizens ; they  live  as  well,  wear  as 
good  clothes,  live  in  just  as  good  houses,  and  earn  as  much  money 
as  we  do.  We  need  no  more  of  a tariff  wall  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States  than  we  do*  between  Minnesota  and  the  Dakotas. 

You  will  be  told  that  this  treaty  does  not  go  far  enough;  that  the 
President  has  not  made  a good  bargain  with  Canada,  and  that  we 
should  reject  it  on  that  account.  We  believe  that  absolute  free  trade 


4 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


with  Canada  would  be  the  greatest  possible  factor  in  the  development 
of  the  Northwest  states;  but  we  also  believe  the  President  when  he 
states  that  free  trade  was  offered  Canada  and  rejected.  In  other 
words,  our  Government  made  the  best  bargain  it  could. 

If  the  treaty  can  be  improved,  we  certainly  would  be  glad,  but  a 
rejection  of  it  now,  in  our  opinion,  will  mean  no  treaty  for  many 
years  to  come,  and  a gradual  growing  apart  of  the  two  countries. 
One  of  the  great  advantages  to  be  gained  by  the  enactment  of  the  law 
would  be  the  starting  of  much  closer  relations  with  our  neighbor  on 
the  North.  He  is  a good  neighbor,  and  we  will  not  suffer  by  coming 
into  closer  contact  with  him. 

Opposition  of  Certain  Parties 

The  passage  of  this  act  will  be  opposed  by  many  of  our  manu- 
facturers who  have  already  established  factories  in  Canada.  It  will 
be  a matter  of  indifference  to  the  larger  manufacturers  of  this  country 
who  have  goods  to  sell  in  Canada  and  who  can  and  will  go  to  Canada 
and  build  plants  there  if  the  treaty  is  not  passed.  To  the  small  manu- 
facturers of  this  country  who  have  not  the  capital  or  the  organization 
to  go  to  Canada  and  build  factories  it  means  a great  deal. 

In  a recent  article  by  Senator  Beveridge  in  the  Saturday  Even- 
ing Post  he  makes  use  of  the  following  pertinent  language: 

“Suppose  the  trade  agreement  between  ourselves  and  Canada 
is  not  what  we  should  like  it  to  be  in  all  of  its  items.  Once  the  policy 
is  established,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  those  defects  will  be  rem- 
edied. When  the  two  peoples  experience  the  benefits  of  freer  com- 
merce and  trade  between  them  not  all  the  politicians  and  all  the  special 
interests  in  both  countries  can  prevent  them  from  making  that  com- 
merce and  trade  still  easier  and  more  intimate. 

“Once  the  policy  is  established  and  proved  to  be  a good  thing  for 
the  two  nations,  the  pressure  of  vast  economic  forces  will  compel 
further  reductions  on  articles  not  already  free  and  a general  equali- 
zation, ever  tending  toward  complete  liberty  of  commerce  between 
the  two  countries. 

“Does  it  not  appear  to  you  to  be  an  unwise  statesmanship  that, 
because  it  is  not  satisfied  with  this  little  thing  here  or  that  little  thing 
yonder,  would  wreck  a great  national  policy  designed  to  benefit  more 
than  a hundred  million  human  beings  on  both  sides  of  the  line? 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


5 


Implement  Industry  Not  Afraid 

Let  one  thing  be  understood.  The  implement  industry  of  the 
United  States  is  one  of  the  few  industries  of  this  country  that  is  will- 
ing to  trade  markets  on  equal  terms  with  the  manufacturers  of  any 
country  in  the  world.  It  wants  no  tariff  on  implements  against  any 
country  that  levies  no  tariff  on  our  implements. 

Where  to  Obtain  Information 

The  tables  for  this  booklet  are  taken  from  a pamphlet  entitled 
“Canadian  Reciprocity/’  a special  message  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  transmitted  to  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  January 
6th,  1911.  We  quote  from  this  communication,  only  such  matter  as 
will  particularly  interest  the  farmer,  but  you  can  easily  obtain  the 
pamphlet  containing  the  entire  treaty  by  writing  a letter  to  your  Con- 
gressman or  Senator  and  asking  that  it  be  mailed  to  you. 

Our  Reason 

We  are  printing  and  distributing  this  pamphlet  in  order  to  spread 
knowledge  of  just  what  the  proposed  act  means  and  because  some  of 
our  public  men  in  Washington  from  the  Northwestern  states  assume 
the  attitude  that  those  who  favor  the  treaty  at  home  are  ignorant  of 
its  provisions. 

If  the  treaty  is  a bad  thing  for  the  Northwestern  farmer  it  is  a 
bad  thing  for  us.  Our  principal  trade  comes  and  will  continue  to 
come  from  the  Northwest  and  anything  that  injures  that  section  will 
injure  us.” 

Association  of  Minnesota  Manufacturers 

April,  1911 


6 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


President’s  Message 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives: 

In  my  annual  message  of  December  6,  1910,  I stated  that  the 
policy  of  broader  and  closer  trade  relations  with  the  Dominion  of 
Canada,  which  was  initiated  in  the  adjustment  of  the  maximum  and 
minimum  provisions  of  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  had  proved 
mutually  beneficial  and  that  it  justified  further  efforts  for  the  read- 
justment of  the  commercial  relations  of  the  two  countries.  I also 
informed  you  that,  by  my  direction,  the  Secretary  of  State  had  dis- 
patched two  representatives  of  the  Department  of  State  as  special 
commissioners  to  Ottawa  to  confer  with  representatives  of  the  Do- 
minion Government,  that  they  were  authorized  to  take  steps  to 
formulate  a reciprocal  trade  agreement,  and  that  the  Ottawa  confer- 
ences thus  begun,  had  been  adjourned  to  be  resumed  in  Washington. 

On  the  7th  of  the  present  month  two  cabinet  ministers  came  to 
Washington  as  representatives  of  the  Dominion  Government,  and 
the  conferences  were  continued  between  them  and  the  Secretary  of 
State.  The  result  of  the  negotiations  was  that  on  the  21st  instant 
a reciprocal  trade  agreement  was  reached,  the  text  of  which  is  here- 
with transmitted  with  accompanying  correspondence  and  other  data. 

One  by  one  the  controversies  resulting  from  the  uncertainties 
which  attended  the  partition  of  British  territory  on  the  American 
Continent  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  and  which  were  inevitable 
under  the  then  conditions,  have  been  eliminated — some  by  arbitra- 
tion and  some  by  direct  negotiation.  The  merits  of  these  disputes, 
many  of  them  extending  through  a century,  need  not  now  be  reviewed. 
They  related  to  the  settlement  of  boundaries,  the  definition  of  rights 
of  navigation,  the  interpretation  of  treaties,  and  many  other  subjects. 

Through  the  friendly  sentiments,  the  energetic  efforts,  and  the 
broadly  patriotic  views  of  successive  administrations,  and  especially 
of  that  of  my  immediate  predecessor,  all  these  questions  have  been 
settled.  The  most  acute  related  to*  the  Atlantic  fisheries,  and  this 
long-standing  controversy,  after  amicable  negotiation,  was  referred 
to  The  Hague  Tribunal.  The  judgment  of  that  august  international 
court  has  been  accepted  by  the  people  of  both  countries  and  a satis- 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


7 


factory  agreement  in  pursuance  of  the  judgment  has  ended  com- 
pletely the  controversy.  An  equitable  arrangement  has  recently  been 
reached  between  our  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  the  sim- 
ilar body  in  Canada  in  regard  to  through  rates  on  the  transportation 
lines  between  the  two  countries. 

The  path  having  been  thus  opened  for  the  improvement  of  com- 
mercial relations,  a reciprocal  trade  agreement  is  the  logical  sequence 
of  all  that  has  been  accomplished  in  disposing  of  matters  of  a diplo- 
matic and  controversial  character.  The  identity  of  interest  of  two 
peoples  linked  together  by  race,  language,  political  institutions,  and 
geographical  proximity  offers  the  foundation.  The  contribution  to 
the  industrial  advancement  of  our  own  country  by  the  migration 
across  the  boundary  of  the  thrifty  and  industrious  Canadians  of  Eng- 
lish, Scotch,  and  French  origin  is  now  repaid  by  the  movement  of 
large  numbers  of  our  own  sturdy  farmers  to  the  northwest  of  Can- 
ada, thus  giving  their  labor,  their  means,  and  their  experience  to  the 
development  of  that  section,  with  its  agricultural  possibilities. 

The  guiding  motive  in  seeking  adjustment  of  trade  relations 
between  two>  countries  so  situated  geographically  should  be  to  give 
play  to  productive  forces  as  far  as  practicable,  regardless  of  political 
boundaries.  While  equivalency  should  he  sought  in  an  arrangement 
of  this  character,  an  exact  balance  of  financial  gain  is  neither  impera- 
tive nor  attainable.  No  yardstick  can  measure  the  benefits  to  the 
two  peoples  of  this  freer  commercial  intercourse  and  no  trade  agree- 
ment should  be  judged  wholly  by  customhouse  statistics. 

We  have  reached  a stage  in  our  own  development  that  calls  for 
a statesmanlike  and  broad  view  of  our  future  economic  status  and 
its  requirements.  We  have  drawn  upon  our  natural  resources  in  such 
a way  as  to  invite  attention  to  their  necessary  limit.  This  has  prop- 
erly aroused  effort  to  conserve  them,  to  avoid  their  waste,  and  to 
restrict  their  use  to  our  necessities.  We  have  so  increased  in  popula- 
tion and  in  our  consumption  of  food  products  and  the  other  necessi- 
ties of  life,  hitherto  supplied  largely  from  our  own  country,  that 
unless  we  materially  increase  our  production  we  can  see  before  us 
a change  in  our  economic  position,  from  that  of  a country  selling  to 
the  world  food  and  natural  products  of  the  farm  and  forest,  to  one 
consuming  and  importing  them.  Excluding  cotton,  which  is  excep- 
tional, a radical  change  is  already  shown  in  our  exports  in  the  falling 
off  in  the  amount  of  our  agricultural  products  sold  abroad  and  a 


8 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


corresponding  marked  increase  in  our  manufactures  exported.  A 
farsighted  policy  requires  that  if  we  can  enlarge  our  supply  of  natural 
resources,  and  especially  of  food  products  and  the  necessities  of  life, 
without  substantial  injury  to  any  of  our  producing  and  manufactur- 
ing classes.,  we  should  take  steps  to  do  so  now.  We  have  on  the 
north  of  us  a country  contiguous  to  ours  for  three  thousand  miles, 
with  natural  resources  of  the  same  character  as  ours  which  have  not 
been  drawn  upon  as  ours  have  been,  and  in  the  development  of  which 
the  conditions  as  to  wages  and  character  of  the  wage  earner  and  trans- 
portation to  market  differ  but  little  from  those  prevailing  with  us.  ' 
The  difference  is  not  greater  than  it  is  between  different  States  of 
our  own  country  or  between  different  Provinces  of  the  Dominion  of 
Canada.  Ought  we  not,  then,  to  arrange  a commercial  agreement 
with  Canada,  if  we  can,  by  which  we  shall  have  direct  access  to  her 
great  supply  of  natural  products  without  an  obstructing  or  prohibitory 
tariff  ? This  is  not  a violation  of  the  protective  principle,  as  that  has 
been  authoritatively  announced  by  those  who  uphold  it,  because  that 
principle  does  not  call  for  a tariff  between  this  country  and  one 
whose  conditions  as  to  production,  population,  and  wages  are  so 
like  ours,  and  when  our  common  boundary  line  of  three  thousand 
miles  in  itself  must  make  a radical  distinction  between  our  commer- 
cial treatment  of  Canada  and  of  any  other  country. 

The  Dominion  has  greatly  prospered.  It  has  an  active,  ag- 
gressive, and  intelligent  people.  They  are  coming  to  the  parting  of 
the  ways.  They  must  soon  decide  whether  they  are  to  regard  them- 
selves as  isolated  permanently  from  our  markets  by  a perpetual  wall 
or  whether  we  are  to  be  commercial  friends.  If  we  give  them  reason 
to  take  the  former  view,  can  we  complain  if  they  adopt  methods 
denying  access  to  certain  of  their  natural  resources  except  upon  con- 
ditions quite  unfavorable  to  us?  A notable  instance  of  such  a possi- 
bility may  be  seen  in  the  conditions  surrounding  the  supply  of  pulp 
wood  and  the  manufacture  of  print  paper,  for  which  we  have  made 
a conditional  provision  in  the  agreement,  believed  to  be  equitable. 
Should  we  not  now,  therefore,  before  their  policy  has  become  too 
crystallized  and  fixed  for  change,  meet  them  in  a spirit  of  real  con- 
cession, facilitate  commerce  between  the  two  countries,  and  thus 
greatly  increase  the  natural  resources  available  to  our  people? 

I do  not  wish  to  hold  out  the  prospect  that  the  unrestricted 
interchange  of  food  products  will  greatly  and  at  once  1 educe  their 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


9 


cost  to  the  people  of  this  country.  Moreover,  the  present  small 
amount  of  Canadian  surplus  for  export  as  compared  with  that  of 
our  own  production  and  consumption  would  make  the  reduction  grad- 
ual. Excluding  the  element  of  transportation,  the  price  of-  staple 
food  products,  especially  of  cereals,  is  much  the  same  the  world 
over,  and  the  recent  increase  in  price  has  been  the  result  of  a world- 
wide cause.  But  a source  of  supply  as  near  as  Canada  would  cer- 
tainly help  to  prevent  speculative  fluctuations,  would  steady  local 
price  movements,  and  would  postpone  the  effect  of  a further  world 
increase  in  the  price  of  leading  commodities  entering  into  the  cost 
of  living,  if  that  be  inevitable. 

In  the  reciprocal  trade  agreement  numerous  additions  are  made 
to  the  free  list.  These  include  not  only  food  commodities,  such  as 
cattle,  fish,  wheat  and  other  grains,  fresh  vegetables,  fruits,  and  dairy 
products,  but  also  rough  lumber  and  raw  materials  useful  to  our  own 
industries.  Free  lumber  we  ought  to  have.  By  giving  our  people 
access  to  Canadian  forests  we  shall  reduce  the  consumption  of  our 
own,  which,  in  the  hands  of  comparatively  few  owners,  now  have 
a value  that  requires  the  enlargement  of  our  available  timber  re- 
sources. 

Natural,  and  especially  food,  products  being  placed  on  the  free 
list,  the  logical  development  of  a policy  of  reciprocity  in  rates  on 
secondary  food  products,  or  foodstuffs  partly  manufactured,  is,  where 
they  cannot  also  be  entirely  exempted  from  duty,  to  lower  the  duties 
in  accord  with  the  exemption  of  the  raw  material  from  duty.  This 
has  been  followed  in  the  trade  agreement  which  has  been  negotiated. 
As  an  example,  wheat  is  made  free  and  the  rate  on  flour  is  equalized 
on  a lower  basis.  In  the  same  way,  live  animals  being  made  free, 
the  duties  on  fresh  meats  and  on  secondary  meat  products  and  on 
canned  meats  are  substantially  lowered.  Fresh  fruits  and  vegetables 
being  placed  on  the  free  list,  the  duties  on  canned  goods  of  these 
classes  are  reduced. 

Both  countries  in  their  industrial  development  have  to  meet  the 
competition  of  lower  priced  labor  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  Both 
follow  the  policy  of  encouraging  the  development  of  home  industries 
by  protective  duties  within  reasonable  limits.  This  has  made  it  diffi- 
cult to  extend  the  principle  of  reciprocal  rates  to  many  manufactured 
commodities,  but  after  much  negotiation  and  effort  we  have  suc- 
ceeded in  doing  so  in  various  and  important  instances. 


10 


JUDGE  FOR1  YOURSELF 


The  benefit  to  our  widespread  agricultural  implement  industry 
from  the  reduction  of  Canadian  duties  in  the  agreement  is  clear. 
Similarly  the  new,  widely  distributed  and  expanding  motor  vehicle 
industry  of  the  United  States  is  given  access  to  the  Dominion  mar- 
ket. on  advantageous  terms. 

My  purpose  in  making  a reciprocal  trade  agreement  with  Can- 
ada has  been  not  only  to  obtain  one  which  would  be  mutually  advan- 
tageous to  both  countries,  but  one  which  also  would  be  truly  national 
in  its  scope  as  applied  to  our  own  country  and  would  be  of  benefit  to 
all  sections.  The  currents  of  business  and  the  transportation  facilities 
that  will  be  established  forward  and  back  across  the  border  cannot  but 
inure  to-  the  benefit  of  the  boundary  States.  Some  readjustments 
may  be  needed,  but  in  a very  short  period  the  advantage  of  the  free 
commercial  exchange  between  communities  separated  only  by  short 
distances  will  strikingly  manifest  itself.  That  the  broadening  of  the 
sources  of  food  supplies,  that  the  opening  of  the  timber  resources  of 
the  Dominion  to  our  needs,  that  the  addition  to  the  supply  of  raw 
materials,  will  be  limited  to  no  particular  section  does  not  require 
demonstration.  The  same  observation  applies  to  the  markets  which 
the  Dominion  offers  us  in  exchange.  As  an  illustration,  it  has  been 
found  possible  to  obtain  free  entry  into  Canada  for  fresh  fruits  and 
vegetables — a matter  of  special  value  to  the  South  and  to  the  Pacific 
coast  in  disposing  of  their  products  in  their  season.  It  also  has  been 
practicable  to  obtain  free  entry  for  the  cotton-seed  oil  of  the  South — 
a most  important  product  with  a rapidly  expanding  consumption  in 
the  Dominion. 

The  entire  foreign  trade  of  Canada  in  the  last  fiscal  year,  1910, 
was  $655,000,000.  The  imports  were  $376,000,000,  and  of  this 
amount  the  United  States  contributed  more  than  $223,000,000.  The 
reduction  in  the  duties  imposed  by  Canada  will  largely  increase  this 
amount  and  give  us  even  a larger  share  of  her  market  than  we  now 
enjoy?  great  as  that  is. 

The  data  accompanying  the  text  of  the  trade  agreement  exhibit 
in  detail  the  facts  which  are  here  set  forth  briefly  and  in  outline  only. 
They  furnish  full  information  on  which  the  legislation  recommended 
may  be  based.  Action  on  the  agreement  submitted  will  not  interfere 
with  such  revision  of  our  own  tariff  on  imports  from  all  countries  as 
Congress  may  decide  to  adopt. 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


11 


Reciprocity  with  Canada  must  necessarily  be  chiefly  confined  in 
its  effect  on  the  cost  of  living  to  food  and  forest  products.  The 
question  of  the  cost  of  clothing  as  affected  by  duty  on  textiles  and 
their  raw  materials,  so  much  mooted,  is  not  within  the  scope  of  an 
agreement  with  Canada,  because  she  raises  comparatively  few  wool 
sheep,  and  her  textile  manufactures  are  unimportant. 

This  trade  agreement,  if  entered  into,  will  cement  the  friendly 
relations  with  the  Dominion  which  have  resulted  from  the  satisfac- 
tory settlement  of  the  controversies  that  have  lasted  for  a century, 
and  further  promote  good  feeling  between  kindred  peoples.  It  will 
extend  the  market  for  numerous  products  of  the  United  States  among 
the  inhabitants  of  a prosperous  neighboring  country  with  an  increas- 
ing population  and  an  increasing  purchasing  power.  It  will  deepen 
and  widen  the  sources  of  food  supply  in  contiguous  territory,  and  will 
facilitate  the  movement  and  distribution  of  these  foodstuffs. 

The  geographical  proximity,  the  closer  relation  of  blood,  com- 
mon sympathies,  and  identical  moral  and  social  ideas  furnish  very 
real  and  striking  reasons  why  this  agreement  ought  to  be  viewed 
from  a high  plane. 

Since  becoming  a nation,  Canada  has  been  our  good  neighbor, 
immediately  contiguous  across  a wide  continent  without  artificial  or 
natural  barrier  except  navigable  waters  used  in  common. 

She  has  cost  us  nothing  in  the  way  of  preparations  for  defense 
against  her  possible  assault,  and  she  never  will.  She  has  sought  to 
agree  with  us  quickly  when  differences  have  disturbed  our  relations. 
She  shares  with  us  common  traditions  and  aspirations.  I feel  I have 
correctly  interpreted  the  wish  of  the  American  people  by  expressing 
in  the  arrangement  now  submitted  to  Congress  for  its  approval,  their 
desire  for  a more  intimate  and  cordial  relationship  with  Canada.  I 
therefore  earnestly  hope  that  the  measure  will  be  promptly  enacted 
into  law. 

Wm.  H.  Taft. 

The  White  House,  January  26,  1911. 


12 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


3 43 

d® 

is 

IS 


5 © 

IS 


- 2 

o-fJ 


%bo 

S-  G 


d © 

rd-d 


OS 

35 

3 o 


■2  3 

dffl 


wO  . 

3 ®* 


dS 

d o 

® u 

•3^ 

G M 

0 £ 
®ft 

3e 


Od 

®s 


-*-»  (D 

S3 

2 3 
3d 
G 

3d 

G © 


o ft 
3 „ 
d m 
o a) 


is 

&I 

® G 

rj  (D 


IS 

tJ  o 

^ CQ 

C 


d d 

d72 

Od 

0) 

3'S 

30 


®&< 


hH^2 


1° 


_fc£ 


s s 

C-  Cfl 

8 S 


i 8 S! 


5 s s$ 

* g 93 

$f  sCs' 


SSSS8888  :SS 

\d  Cg  JO  ^ ep  rH  P*  ! Q>  00 


ID  tH  CO 


Cft  t-  . COr 
rH  in  * ID 


c8  o?  c^  co  co  06  leg 
■ * <0  ait-  .co 


• 55  99 

a* 

r-T  LO 


^©cooeocpcoeocoo 
co%coH(NQQfOioo5 
rH  CO  OOOO  ^ ^00HO5  OO 
iDr-TcoaT  LO  IT?  < 

ID  HO>  CO  LD  C 


’S3 


®3®X3rn®®aj 
-g  ©-G  © “dd  3 
©G  © 3 © w tn.a  <« 

Gdl^GGcoO© 


88 

Ot- 

COCO 


:S8S8ggS 

i£££88§8 

> CO  05  © t-  05  35 


S888888J 


58 

00 1>* 


<NJCDdftC£>  00 
Ci  t-  CO 
t-COrH 


83gg» 

riaM 


m 


w tn  m 

j-SSgGC®® 
•©  ® 3 3 3 © ® 

Q »C  rC 


d 

II  § 

a 


r-100  - ' 

t- © c- 00 1- »o  csj 

^wpSSS-Jgjfl 


O 

(- 

ft 

o . 

© CQ 

tH  © 


OO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOO 
TlJ  niJ  ^ r0  ^ TiJ  n3  rO  *^3  rO  ^ tiJ  T3  *0  *0  r0  ro  ^ pO  TIJ  rc^  ^ fC^ 


u 

&§$  s 


p»d 

& 


Q<4-> 

3 
m © 


o © 


— © I— .' 

© rj  • © 

43  m ;G 
m 3 . ot 
3,q  • 3 
43  :43 

t-  m : G 
ft  ©•  I ft 
w © ; m 
C Ej  ‘ G 


© © © 
GGG 
mi n w 
3 3 3 
GGG 

S-.t-.t-i 
© © ©d 

ftftftg 

W CD  Oi  © 


■>d  m s 

;§c§ 

§ga 

ftO  ^ 
1 , . S-. 


n 


* 


^ 4->  . . *♦-'  Ul 

„ ^ M fl  s.  g(jC*<  G -*-1 

oo¥o©?^o®oo®ffi$o®©®$oo  o©^5-Go 

^3  >d  ft^j  o©rd®r^rd©<D  G.^3  o o o ft>d  fd  d © ® o d 

’ :9S  :»  : : : ^ 


s-  , 

c£ 

CD 

© m 


2© 

o 

S5 

G 

®J  - 
■G  fe 


s § 

<♦  . ri 


^2^ 


©I 


© © t.  © 

3 3 ©3 

+J  +J  > 4J 

o3  d O d 

OO  o 


> G P 

°if 


© , 
2^ 


Ed 


•S  ©d  © 
d > 
w—  ©3 


CD  H 

rH  ^ <D  . . 


© & 
beg 
2g 
Mm 


ft-©  t, 

_ o 

dd'w 

t »®2*j 
d t.  5-  o 
©dd  c 

®2®‘ 

© 55  ®2^oon.2  3 S-© 

© 3 3?  ©3  t.  oGG'5  >>d  S3  ®J2 

^GoOk  dS'ti’O'Jri^ooN 


M B a! 

d © ©•( 
^ © o( 

^ ft3 


W ■G 

©G  g 

©3' 


I®? 


G O 

OH 


10.10 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


13 


Articles  of  the  growth,  product  or  manufacture  of  the  United  States  to  be  admitted  into  Canada  free  of  duty  or  with  reduced  duties  and 
showing  present  tariff  duties,  proposed  duties  and  imports  from  the  United  States  into  Canada  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  80,  1910. 


14 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


££d 

•■gS 

35-2  G 


© TO 

•r1  'd 
> d 
© 3 


d © 
'd  *i 

d*> 

U-d 

© 

.gP 


o . 


o • to  to  • (M 

oo  : (M  : oo 

g i®!  jg 

• : 


oorfi  eooo-? 


O <M  ^ CO  00  CO 


Td  — 
3 m’O 

©-'S’sS'Sc 

b§fcaga 

4°l 

JNOlMN'tH 


>OqM®,-HeOUie)Tf< 

>e5iouiC'-®cot>Oi 


to  ^ op  its  e>  oo 

b-MCOop® 
ft^OiOC 
cibi  l£5jg 


8 8 SS  S 

§ i ii  $ 

eg  is  eg®  eg 


838  8ggggSo88£  8 

O oo  oo  c^th  fS  Ttuo  eo-^N  ^ t~t-toKoo 

eoegjo  eg  r-T  eor-hor-T  m tft  ft  V gg  <yT 


S3  'S 

cm  co  oo 
oofc  t- 

3” 


>££9  £3  25  21  ©S3  £3 12  ^ S3  eg  ‘ to  oo  eg  <ft  <o  oo 

i oo  eg  aooceocctcr-N  m op  co  io  oo  b-  oo 

M©  N 00  O M 00  in  rn  6 CO  © ©g  M 05  «o  to  is 

" oo  oo  to*  co~  eg  eg  ©-T  oo  eg  ft  la  ft  ft  oo  © t© 

< ^ *H  *H  i-UOr-lftoo 


-p3  3 

>-3©©©3©3 

gig  “IIeIIIeI 

§°S  °ES§g|6|E 

S3-3S  r33S?S3?3 


be^S  be 


I 


^ ^ c c c ^ 

G flCCv 
jpjocoiogc 


s$s?a“  $ 


g § § § g 

I&&&I 

weo  rH  iA  (.  $ 

g>3  oc5^t 

t>Teo  i/f  ► J 

ft&ssg; 


:»  S-e 

: 'O  3 c 

: § g,| 

2 :ofg 

1 !§!§! 

I :fcnI? 

ia3  » 

w ' it  g 
S3  5c  © s3ti  0 

8 isltes  : 


ag 
s © 

© ft 


-a  : 

S3  • 
3 : 
o • 
ft  : 


3 
3 O 
© ft 
ft 

3 
m © 

Cft 

© 

s° 


b 

goo 


w ^ o®ooo°oooo  oo®o 

O'O'O  rQ  ftfQf^fQ  __'0'0'0'0  r^Jr^  ©>0 


'O'd 
3 3 
3 3 
o d 
ftft 


d 

3 

*0  d 
©TJ 

cc  “ to 
<3  w © 
k'5e£ 

ft©  5) 
><  « 
© >> 

-g-S© 

og| 

£ ft  g 
©or 

Eh 

rt  l6" 
© 


.3  Si 
'd 


• m • m • w 
Id  id  I'd 

• 3 -3  -3 

©SolIo  • d 

HOftEfl  ; ft 

Igfelds 

ft^ft^ftg  ft 
® ® °« 
S C C 3 3 ^ C 
© © © © © $ © 
o © o 0 o ft  o 


SSc 


ftg 

m O 

3 Sh 
© © 
O ft 


e gs 


w ^ w 

ft»  ft 


'd 
© o d 

ft-ona 

^ : 


dSddoSdddd 
ra  p-'O'd'd  g'd'd'd'd 

8 ‘ 


'd'd 
s 3 

s 3 : •d'd 
d d : 3 3 
ftft  • 3 3 
. , : d d 

3 • o,  a 

ftfttj  3 3 
w w © ft  ft 
S3  , »« 
OdSSfe33 

■§■§  . ftg£ 


o I d 


© © 
-S 

1,3  .I 

© 3 
fto 
<3 


iiS 

:Sf!g 

■.  d © 

• © d © 

■ " 03 


■ : 3 : 

33“  P'S 

iPi 

3 ,q3  m 

^©-o £ © 

> Be®  ft 
^ ®do„ 


sd-jg-gi 

fee  © d 

d 


,35 

i !>>  ^ 


- ©ri  u 3 t,  o 


Zi  © d u;  rj 

g©»^3 
^3Wg 
© - 
ft  »IA 


ri3  d 

--d 
C.g  3 
,H 


© W 
35  © 


3 . o 

5 :-2 

^ I d 


r©  • 

3 IH 
d •« 


9<B 


WtO  to 
© © © ^ 
XM  g © 

r^doddo  a3  d 3 b1©  ™.b  u-b  o 
^riOuriricq  wPh  few  w ^Ohm 


.-sal 


ra  3 -L 

.fepd-q-2-g  3 
3 © 3 c 3 © 
35  3 © © © > 

^ o .23  o 


«»>,  |SSS8^» 

8 !«!§  0,^% 
oftmftfc«Eo3c 
3ddM3ft©ddg 
oj  3 o d 3 ft 35  © ©ft 
MOOWO<tJOriPnPH 


^ * K ® © 

I ©»d  2 3 m 3 

ri 

g © ©*g  3 3 

li'SilSS 

EduuririS 


Articles  of  the  growth,  product  or  manufacture  of  Canada  to  be  admitted  into  United  States  free  of  duty  or  with  duty  reduced,  also 
showing  present  United  States  duties,  proposed  duties  and  imports  of  these  articles  into  the  United  States  from  Canada  during  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1910. 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


15 


• >>  . 
©.CW 


c-3 


> G 
© © 
— ' to 

o p, 

Z 


S S8 
8 83 


o o 
•O  'O 


m © 


© • £ 
| IS 
E 


TJ 

S ,'© 

g : c 

ft  • p 


6 ~ 


°©g 
E' — 


to 

3 

£t  O 
© 


©-o 
^ a 
®"3g 

m 3 O 
2.XJ  ft 


2 

ft  . © 
•w  : 01 

c *■£ 
© o c 
©2  © 


: 2* 


® o 

ft  rtf 


-w  . to  45 
© O © O' 


© bo 
to  ft  ' 


bOrpj  © © 2 'S  ” 

•Sl6“ftc 

3W  tG 
0*0  © 


— 

© QJ 
© 


ug  s 

° g £ 
• o 

-tj  t-l 

P«m  . to 


t-ra 
o © 
_ © 
T3  W 
© 

© fi 

32 

iS  o 

feu 


o 

.5  > .. 

O 

«’o,d 

!hif 

“3  • 

to  ^©^ 
mxj'O 


£2  crHC-a 


© t W..S 

£ © fc* 
*fc;5 

©'PS 
p P d 

©<2 


’ ,834“ 


to  - 
© 5 

- S-  • 


<D  00  h 


'•o'? 

„ o c 

S ® ® 

•n  g-gS  <2 


= bS£ 
c © , 


**  © d o ^ '©  2 .2 

O 


>£©d 

3 


1 © 5 © ■p  © 

1 ro  .rot, 

\G  o ynv 

© gfrt- 

n « 

_f©  2 X 
to  o 

C 5 ^ * 3 

ft©i3'CT5  0>d 
©°^ 

-P3  -2 

C-£  C $ 013P  bc£ 

g 0 g^  © © 3 c to 

o o 


BpSggs 

■*2 -•go*  t 

.-islss 


■d«‘°£S.  | 
g**  ® s 

c 2 ©-o 


ft 

“7,boo,D 


tn  'O 

o © 


. © d 

fc  .P  ft-  to 
0 o ^©  *5  C 

0)  *•  (-1  . © - 

’tifi'C  ft  c 


- ® M 

35  g 


£ © 
■2  p 


P c 5 » 

U •!-.  d tC 


t-i  - 


©cdge<©i3p:«C5p(toC)©o 

MS  H <J  O 


to 

£ 


Oj  pro 

M .X>m 
2,o^  t- 
co  © d p 

s w 


c p^  p 
C d to  oj 

^ © to 

rfs4*c£grt 

2-0  © ft’©,2  © d w 


EE 


5 £ 

3 JS  © T 

.2  £ 4->  > © 

*J£  © d 

E O 


16 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


bet* 

52 

£•3 

gd 

-d  ® 
® u 

o a 

06  ® 

jj 

dd 


t? 130 
22 

2 d 
tjd 
£ 03 
*^2 
®a 

£5 

~a 

o o 


S3 

51 

IS 

Ss>® 

d o2 
d is-*3 

S22 

d _,  d 

0 *0  ±J 

?§* 

1 Jh  ® 

ei  So 
• d 3 

fc  © d 

» o- 
d 2® 
ffl  <3  2 

*§2 
a3  *-> 

°o 

=£  Q. 

° d 
« d 

2nd 

l§ 

d ao 
d ® 
08  2 

52 

0’S 


d d 

a 

2o 

og 


2 o 

d a 

?2 

5ft 


fe*3 

d2 

be  to 

©2 
-d* 
*3  .3 
•HOD 


®dS 

st>* 

® © 
© d 
u d 

O.HJ 


• >>  . 

®XJ0Q 

SsP 

Sis 


IS 

i? 

© t-> 


d 
d 
d 
d ° 

5 a 


U 1-. 
© © 
Aft 


d d 
© © 
© o 


o o © 
d d © 


© 

a 

© 

4-» 

(4 

: d 

s 

0> 

<D 

o 

: o 

£ 

ft 

cent 

• t- 
c ® 

gp- 

© 

(4  © 

© © 

d 

(4 

m -*-; 

m d 

© 

© 

83p. 

ft  d 
M © 

ft  © 

S 

rH  O 

o ° 

oo 

e^-rH 

rH 

H« 

1 1 >>n-T  i 

C ^3  C X O 

•d  d S ® bfi 

-2  S? 

5"  2|o 

d M-  ^ 

^©BS° 

— d d ° M 
d >,©43  £P 
v,  o ooi; 
a d © 5 

d<h  ® 

•d  bO^  > 

«|©©S 

2l22d^ 

43  © w w d-d 

m 


d o 
d « 
bfi 
© d 

31 


bo  33 
d o 

fc-g 

m 2 

04 

© 

-4*^3 

3* 

m 


x © 

© be 
d d 

©4,- 

o 


P >>  ^ be 

°Sgc 

«§B2 

!!*m 

w ma  d 

W 3*^ 

’>  o 5? 

* ? (h  O 


13 


s’!!*  « © bo,®  i 

S-fs&igSS 

i • . -Qd  £ © $ 

-Sdii  tdJ  a dd  wr 
> O o d ® d-d  w “ d £ 
Ow  mh 


d d © 

■0^5 

_ o w 

C/2  G . 

•*  S 

a *3 

d ©5 

si: 

5*28 

S'-S 

d © s 

jitS-d 

'D 

0)73  S 


! ©o,® 

Sag  2 3 * 

2^.  ^d'S 
, . - ° ddd 

!i!!i»gs 

!^*Sal  hi 

^eJoapiH  ■S+j-S 
$43  £Aa)d  o w 2 2. 

ilso  2»  „-c5= 

. B bo-*-1-?  » d © e 
;^dj4ClCi#o'd^2 

° °s!5III3I 

k t> 


^ w'd'd 

-d.®  d 


a 6 3-d 

d £ 
o o 
S'd'Q 

2 52 

bo.  *d  © © c'z 

5SS-SS-1 


d©i^o 

g 2 Sa-S 

• bo+J  o 

© dt 

q C £ O © U .S  » 
o d d x ® d 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


17 


SB 

cm  cm 


© 

ft 

CO  00 
CM  05 
CO  t~ 
rHCM 
CM  «0 
t"  t— 


E 

w • • 

© 

d 

X 

© 

to 

cS 

J4 

© 

to 

oS 

X 

t) 

© 

G 

O 

”2 

© • • 

© :^j 
© • © 
ft  Ifi 

© 

© 

+j 

V 

o 

d 

ft 

G 

© 

ft 

m 

o 

cS 

ft 

G 

© 

ft 

<0 

a3 

ft 

G 

© 

ft 

m 

> 

•o 

cS 

-M 

G 

© 

P 

ts  per  M 
ts  per  M, 
ts  per  M 

ts  per  M 

<L> 

«W 

§ 

G 

© 

ft 

© 

© 

«tH 

a 

G 

© 

•M 

G 

C 

G 

© 

CCg 
© © © 

G 

© 

ft 

© 

o 

© 

© 

© 

P 

ft 

o P O 

P 

CM 

O 

L£5 

.a 

■**< 

CM 

£ 

Sgg 

ia 

c- 

««• 

- ft  o 
» hfrt 
c ® C 

Sgs* 

P o5 
-.N  O 

!$o  o„_, 
^ cS  o 

w o ® £» 

-3  to.t; 

g “j§  I 

"coo.! 

© ctS  aj  I 
MjOftOl 


as® 


§© 

G**-1 

S8 

IS. 


£2 


J-<  0) 
£n 
* 


© L 

ftg 

ft 


;-C  ©t3  G COO'S  C 

© c c ° o © k c o 

-vG  O cS  ■ G .*_>  cS 

£*©«  -gS-^  « 

G2§'0®2^a  o © 
- s ® o%  * 

5 & to 

SaC^C'^C!  , G 

l-So“o  J:<g  /3q 

®; 


18 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


Some  Facts  and  Questions 

What  About  Free  Meat? 

Much  is  said  about  live  animals  in  the  treaty  being  on  the  free 
list,  while  meats  are  protected.  We  venture  the  assertion  that  it  is 
no  fault  of  our  packers  that  meats  are  not  also  on  the  free  list,  but  we 
would  ask  the  question : Is  that  to  the  advantage  or  disadvantage  of 
our  farmers?  Will  the  packing  houses  now  in  operation  in  Canadian 
cities,  like  Winnipeg  and  Calgary,  protected  by  a duty  against  our 
packers,  not  continue  to  grow  and  thrive  and  offer  to  our  boundary 
farmers  competing  markets  for  the  shipment  of  their  live-stock? 

Lumber  Schedule 

The  provisions  of  the  treaty  as  to  lumber  are  condemned  as  not 
going  far  enough.  We  wish  they  went  further,  but  we  would  ask 
why  the  largest  of  the  great  timber  owners  in  the  United  States  are 
fighting  this  treaty  so  vigorously? 

Settlers  in  Canada 

It  was  said  some  ten  years  ago  that  we  did  not  want  to  help 
settle  Canada  by  adopting  a Reciprocity  Treaty  with  that  country. 
Canada  has  settled  up  just  the  same,  and  largely  by  our  own  people, 
and  the  price  of  our  land  has  continued  to  advance. 

It  is  feared  and  freely  stated  that  the  enactment  of  this  Treaty 
will  depress  the  price  of  our  land.  We  would  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  price  of  similar  land  in  our  own  states  separated  by  only 
a short  distance  varies  in  price.  Land  in  Northern  Iowa  is  higher  in 
price  than  land  of  the  same  kind  in  Southern  Minnesota.  Land  in 
Central  Minnesota  is  higher  in  price  than  land  of  the  same  kind  in 
South  Dakota. 


Protection  of  Wheat 

At  present  the  duty  on  wheat  is  twenty-five  cents  a bushel,  but 
the  difference  in  price  between  Minneapolis  and  Winnipeg  averages 
only  about  five  cents  a bushel,  so  it  is  evident  that  at  the  outside,  only 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


19 


a small  part  of  the  twenty-five  cents  could  be  protection.  On  the 
other  hand  we  find  that  the  Minneapolis  market  is  about  five  cents 
higher  than  the  Chicago  market.  In  other  words,  Chicago  and  Win- 
nipeg are  about  the  same.  Now,  the  price  effect  by  taking  off  the 
tariff  on  wheat  will  be  to  bring  the  Winnipeg  market  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  United  States  market.  Liverpool  will  have  to  bid 
against  the  United  States  to  retain  this  Canadian  wheat.  Canadian 
exporters  and  railways  will  exert  themselves  to  secure  every  bushel 
they  can  and  with  the  advantage  of  the  American  market  the  Cana- 
dian farmer  would  no  longer  offer  his  export  wheat  at  lower  than 
United  States  prices.  Liverpool  would  be  unable  to  play  Canada 
against  the  United  States  which  would  a benefit  to  the  wheat  grower, 
whether  in  Canada  or  in  the  United  States.  The  net  result  of  taking 
the  tariff  off  wheat  will  be  to  give  the  Canadian  grower  a better 
price, — not  to  give  the  American  grower  a lower  price. 

Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  Canadian  railroads  will  try  to  haul  all 
the  grain  that  they  possibly  can  to  their  own  ports  on  Lake  Superior 
and  that  the  result  will  be  some  real  competition  in  railroad  rates  ? 

The  average  Western  Canadian  farmer  is  a one  crop  farmer. 
Diversified  farming  will  not  make  much  progress  in  Western  Canada 
for  a long  time.  Potatoes,  vegetables,  hay,  fruits,  dairy  and  poultry 
products  are  imported  into  Canada  now  despite  the  tariff.  The 
Reciprocity  Treaty  puts  them  on  the  free  list  and  the  demands  for 
them  in  this  country  will  be  greatly  increased. 

Stop  the  Leaks 

To  make  farming  profitable  the  farmer  needs  a continuous  de- 
mand for  his  products.  Our  Northwestern  farmers  need  markets  for 
the  fruits  of  their  fields,  flocks  and  herds.  But  if  the  manufacturing 
industries  are  driven  out  of  our  centers  of  population  the  farmers’ 
best  customers  are  taken  away  and  the  inevitable  result  is  reduced 
prices  for  farm  products  because  of  the  lessened  demand. 

Reciprocity  will  stop  the  leak  of  our  manufacturers  moving:  to 
Canada.  Statistics  show  that  more  than  seven  hundred  and  fifty 
American  manufacturers  have  opened  up  in  Canada  in  the  last  ten 
years  and  fully  as  many  more  will  be  apt  to  follow  if  we  fail  in  this 
our  present  opportunity  to  stop  the  leak  now  by  agreeing  to  the 
reciprocity  treaty.  Facts  and  figures  of  startling  character  on  this 


20 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


point  are  to  be  found  in  recent  public  prints.  Consider  this  carefully 
and  “Judge  for  Yourself,”  bearing  always  in  mind  that  no  one  in- 
dustry or  occupation  can  prosper  alone.  “Each  for  all  and  all  for 
each”  will  work  wonders  in  our  efforts  for  a great  and  prospeous 
country. 


What  About  Free  Flour? 

When  the  price  of  wheat  declines  in  the  United  States  it  also 
declines  in  Canada.  Records  of  grain  exchanges  show  this  conclu- 
sively. The  flour  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  are  willing, 
as  has  been  shown  by  recent  public  prints,  to  exchange  free  flour 
with  Canada  were  Canada  willing.  What  difference  would  it  make 
to  the  farmer  if  flour  were  on  the  free  list? 

Whom  to  Fear 

These  are  days  when  by  reasons  of  the  increased  facilities  of 
communication  and  transportation  public  questions  can  be  thoroughly 
discussed  and  just  and  accurate  conclusions  can  easily  be  reached. 
There  is  nothing  sacred  about  this  proposed  Reciprocity  Treaty. 
We  have  President  Taft's  word  for  it  that  we  obtained  every  con- 
cession possible  and  granted  only  what  we  were  compelled  to.  Cer- 
tainly experience  will  demonstrate  both  to  us  and  to  Canada  as 
to  the  workability  of  the  agreement.  If  after  giving  it  a fair  trial 
we  find  it  needs  realignment  and  adjustment  we  can  try  our  hand 
at  it  again  or  if  need  be  we  can  abrogate  it  entirely.  “Judge  for 
Yourself”  in  the  light  of  all  the  facts  if  it  is  not  well  worthy  of  a 
trial,  realizing  the  increasing  demands  of  a rapidly  increasing  popu- 
lation for  increased  production  in  every  line  of  activity. 

“Judge  for  Yourself”  as  to  how  much  of  the  publicity  given  to 
objections  to  enacting  the  treaty  assumed  to  come  from  farmers  ac- 
tually originates  with  farmers.  We  know  of  publications  which  have 
sent  out  petitions  for  farmers  to  sign,  thereby  putting  into  their 
mouths  words  and  opinions  which  they  not  only  never  originated, 
but  which  on  a complete  showing  of  all  the  facts  they  never  would 
subscribe  to. 

Beware  of  the  “politicians”  who  seek  by  appealing  to  prejudice 
to  obscure  the  real  issue.  Read  this  book  carefully  and  “Judge  for 
Yourself.” 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


21 


The  Lumber  Question. 

In  connection  with  what  has  been  said  about  opposition  to  the 
treaty  on  the  part  of  large  holders  of  standing  timber  we  call  your 
attention  to  the  possibility  of  this  opposition  being  further  aroused 
by  reason  of  the  understanding  that  the  railroads  can  put  into  effect 
a “milling  in  transit”  rate  on  lumber  as  they  do  on  grain.  There  is 
no  reason  why  such  a rate  will  not  be  put  into  effect,  thus  permitting 
undressed  lumber  to  be  loaded  on  the  Canadian  side,  shipped  to  the 
nearest  United  States  crossing,  run  through  a planer  on  the  United 
States  side,  either  at  the  boundary  or  at  any  convenient  point  and 
shipped  on  to  destination.,  or  do  they  see  in  this  treaty,  if  it  is  en- 
acted into  law,  and  a start  thus  made,  the  end  at  a near  date  of  all 
lumber  duties? 


What  Would  You  Buy? 

What  article  of  Canadian  manufacture  not  now  on  the  free  list  is 
there  that  any  of  our  farmers  would  buy  if  the  duty  were  removed? 

Look  the  tables  over  carefully,  always  remembering  that  if  found 
in  practice  that  the  treaty  is  wrong,  that  it  can  be  amended  or  ab- 
rogated. 

“Judge  for  Yourself.,, 


If  you  conclude  after  reading  this  book  that  Canadian 
Reciprocity  is  a good  thing,  tell  your  Senators  and  Represen- 
tatives. 


22 


JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


Comparative  Tables 


April  1,  1911 

The  following  is  a comparison  of  prices  for  No.  1 Northern  Wheat, 
May,  1910,  delivery,  at  Winnipeg,  Port  William  and  Minneapolis,  dur- 
ing the  following  months  which  cover  the  market  months  for  the  crop 
of  1909: 


Minneapolis 


Winnipeg  and 
Fort  William 


September,  1909 
October,  “ 

November,  “ 

December, 
January,  1910 
February,  “ 


High 

Low 

1.02| 

.96| 

1.07§ 

l.OOf 

1.064 

l.Olf 

1.134 

1.04f 

1.144 

1.08| 

1.15 

1.09* 

High 

Low 

.99 

.96J 

l.Olf 

• 974 

.99| 

.964 

1.06* 

.984 

1.09ft 

1.064 

1.07* 

1.05 

JUDGE  FOR  YOURSELF 


23 


Comparative  Tables 


The  reciprocity  arrangement,  we  believe,  was  announced  the  latter 
part  of  January.  Beginning  with  February  1st,  1911,  the  following  is 
a comparative  price  of  No.  1 Northern  Wheat,  for  May,  1911  delivery, 
at  Winnipeg,  Fort  William  and  at  Minneapolis: 

The  mere  mention  has  depressed  the  price  here.  It  has  also  de- 
pressed in  Canada  as  shown  by  tables: 


Winnipeg  and 

Minneapolis  Close  Fort  William  Close 


February  1,  1911 

1.08* 

•97* 

“ 10,  “ .... 

■99* 

,95ft 

February  19,  1911. . . 

• 97f 

•94§ 

March  1,  “ ... 

.95* 

,91§ 

“ 10,  “ ... 

,97| 

• 92f 

i 


